Poll: No-kids-allowed movement. Yay or nay?

[Wushu Panda]

I think if a kid throws a hissy fit they should be thrown out of the plane, in flight. With over six billion people worldwide, who gives a crap if we loose a noisy brat once in a while?

 

[xmbts]

Snip(it really is space consuming at this point)

You say you don't blame the kids so why ban them, they're the ones who are most effected by this. Blame parents all you want it won't change a damn thing, it's just more intolerance.

A ban is a sweeping generalization, so in supporting it you are promoting the misconception that all kids are like this.

I'm kind of surprised that you're unaware that people have differing opinions then you. You aren't right, I'm not right either. Nor are either of us wrong, you keep quoting me and trying to pick apart my responses as if you're the voice of reason and I'm some kind of moron.

Being a child really doesn't have much to do with age young man.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

If we pay for a service(Restaurant, Movie Theater, Grocery), the providers try their absolute best to make the atmosphere good. AC, comfy seats, bigger screens, better food, etc. This is another thing to add onto that list.

I hate when I'm trying to enjoy my rack of ribs, just to have Timmy running around yelling because his parents don't give a shit. I hate when I'm watching the new Harry Potter, the thing I've been waiting to wrap up my childhood stories, and a baby starts bawling his eyes out because the speakers are loud. And I hate when I'm trying to run a few errands for my parents at the grocery store, when Johnny decides to stand in the middle of the god damned aisle for twenty minutes because mommy is too busy.

More people will come to your establishment if you give them what they want; less bratty children.

Yes, I understand I was a child once, but my parents understood that people hate unbehaved children, and I started to fuck around, they took me outside to the car and brought me home, tears and all.

 

[Sparrow]

Argh double post again. You really can't count on people to post inside five minutes anymore. Sorry, at any rate.

Seems a bit extreme. Kids not being allowed to visit cinemas? Kids live for that shit! You may as well just tell them Santa isn't real and be done with it.

Nonononono. Not kids being banned from movie theatres. Parents being banned from bringing screaming infants to late screenings of a movie.

They can yell and jump and scream at a matinee showing of Cars 2 all they bloody want, but if some twat of a mother can't keep her sprog quiet at an 8:30pm showing of Inception, then I will demand my bloody money back from the theatre.

And since the people who own movie theatres would probably like to avoid having to refund tickets, it's in their interest to tell stupid mothers with screaming children to leave their kids at home when going to the movies when there are people there who want to relax after a hard day's work.

Huh, that kind of makes sense. Kids aren't allowed in after 9? Yeah, I could see that working actually. Could even boost sales for a cinema.

[sup]Actually, I'm pretty sure cinemas already do that in England.[/sup]

 

[Burs]

Whilst I do agree for the rule In regard to restuarants, I dont agree to cinema's since here in the UK the Vue chain of cinemas have times in the evening where adults can go and watch PG and occasionaly U films and kids arent allowed in for the very reason you said.

 

[Canid117]

Kids shouldn't be allowed into PG13 and R rated movies regardless of parental supervision if they are under the age of 13. Maybe that way I will never hear a six year old talking loudly behind me while I am trying to watch Predators.

So, kids under the age of 13 shouldn't be allowed into moves rated 'Parental Guidance for Children under 13'

Bullocks.

Go to later showings where kids are less likely to be.

Toddlers should not be watching the Dark Knight.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

I'd love to see how many of the anti-kids people in this topic feel when they have children of their own, especially when they want a break from being stuck at home or work all day and want to go have some fun and can't get a babysitter. Or when they need to get food or can't find anyone to watch their child (children) so have to take them along.

I'd like to think that the "Anti-kids" people here would be less afraid of taking away toys or carry their screaming kids out of the store/restaurant/movie. The problem is that so few parents do that much which can be as big a learning process as being spanked or left to howl until they're blue in the face. Or, heaven forbid, we may actually do something with the child's ideas of fun in mind (something not TV related) rather than dragging them to where they don't want to be.

 

[Canid117]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you can afford to eat out, you can afford a sitter. There's really no excuse for it.

You think I'm being selfish? You'd willingly take your squealing piggies out to an enclosed, public environment where people have paid to be and enjoy themselves, and force them to have their evening ruined by noise because you can't control your little mistakes?

On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

Inconveniencing others for the benefit of yourself, yes that's what I'm saying. If you can afford to eat out and you don't have children I think you can afford to walk out.

Not a fan of that idea then why don't you tough it out and deal with it just like the parents have to every waking minute of their lives.

The quiet people who had the foresight to either wear a condom or leave their kids at home with a responsible baby sitter should not be punished for the actions of a few jerkish asshats. If someone talks on their phone in the middle of the movie theater the management can tell them to piss off and if a kid is screaming and making life uncomfortable for the fifty people in the restaurant trying to be respectful then the manager can tell the family of three to piss off for hurting his business. When the majority is being quiet and respecting the atmosphere then they should not be punished because a couple of idiots cant think ahead to control their kids. The needs of the many trump the wants of the few in this case.

News flash: Parenting is kind of difficult, before you go on complaining about how some noisy brat ruined your evening think about having to tend to that kid 24/7 and cut them some slack. You didn't choose to be a parent and that's your business but you can't just make people do something just because you don't feel comfortable with them.

Yes Parenting is difficult but that is not an excuse to abandon common courtesy. If they want to get away from their kids then they should be willing to hand over 20 bucks to their neighbors 16 year old daughter to watch the kids for two hours. They should not force something on the rest of us when there are viable options for them. They can take their five year olds to PG movies they can take their five year olds to Denny's and they can take their five year olds to places meant to serve families including small children. They should not take their five year olds to a high scale restaurant with a quiet atmosphere, they should not take their five year olds to Machete and they should not take their five year olds to place where a screaming child would ruin the experience for someone else. Everyone is paying to be there. You are ruining it. Yes you paid fifty buck for your food but the rest of us paid a few thousand when added together. So you can be the one to leave. Not us.

 

[6_Qubed]

On one hand, I adore my nieces and nephew, even the younger ones, and hate to see them kept out of a place because of someone else's lax parenting.

On the other hand, I can't stand it when someone brings their screaming grabby brat into a place where I'm trying to relax and do some thinking in peace and quiet and maybe grab a few refills on my Diet Coke while I'm at it. This is but one of the myriad reasons why my headphones and MP3 player might as well be surgically attached.

 

[Les Awesome]

i have a compromise
managers,waiters etc have the right to escort noisy or annoying children out
i realize it could lead many arguments and unnecessary violence
but hey its an idea just putting it out there

 

[Verlander]

In some areas of my life, I demand this rule. Like when I go to pubs. However, for every screaming **** of a child, there are maybe 20 or 30 well behaved kids, that you just don't notice.

People don't learn anything if they aren't exposed to anything. They need to learn how to behave in public. Now some parents just can't teach, but you know what? That's the price you pay for having a load of future grown-ups who can behave publicly.

Then again, I'm a city boy who lives in London-my haunts are nearly always child free anyway. In fact, I'd wager that over 90% of my social life comes nowhere even close to children, and that includes when I travel. So, frankly, I don't give a shit.

 

[the spud]

No. Parents have a difficult enough time trying to get out of the house already without having to find and pay for a sitter. Also, your whole annoying child only tactic doesn't seem like it could practically work, as it would be difficult to determine what constitutes as "annoying".

This exact type of entitlement is the problem. See people who CHOSE not to have children have a right to eat in peace or hear a movie being played without your kid screaming or running around or banging into their chair. You are showing a huge entitlement by suggesting people should put up with your children because you cant find or afford a sitter. YOU CHOSE TO HAVE KIDS. Now you have the consequence. I absolutely should not be forced to endure a child because of YOUR CHOICE. I don't know you and i don't care. The mere fact you have kids does not entitle you to annoy others. You want to bring your kid to dinner, then bring them to a child friendly place. Lots of places cater to you. If you don't like the food, find a sitter.

Some people (like me) can only afford to take their girlfriend to a nice restaurant once a year. It is hugely terrible and disappointing to have that ONE night destroyed because some jerk brought a five year old to a fine dining restaurant. Also it was really expensive. You probably didn't notice anyone else problem though, over your problem finding a sitter.

You have a duty as a human being in society to be respectful of others in a public setting and a responsibility as parent to teach your kid how to act in public.

What constitutes annoying is easy to determine, btw. If anyone staff or otherwise has anything at all to say to anyone about your child's behavior then they are annoying. If someone gives you a dirty offhand look, then your kid is annoying. End of story.

P.S. I have a daughter, its not like i don't know what your talking about, it was still MY CHOICE to do that and it is now MY RESPONSIBILITY to teach her not to be an ass in public.

----------------------------
TLR - You chose to have a kid, don't put it on me now if you cant find a sitter. Your kid is not a special little snowflake, get over it and respect others nights out.

I don't have any children, nor do I plan on having any. I just think you should leave the no children allowed pollicy to be put in place by the restaraunt, and I think that those who have children deserve a break every now and then.

 

[targren]

...why would anyone want to resort to a system that belongs in an era of racism and discrimination?

I'll tell you why: It's not because of the parent of that exceptional 9-year-old you talked about, it's because of the far more common indulgent, self-righteous PITA parent who is absolutely certain that her precious little snowflake can do no wrong, and that people who have a problem with her noisy little crotch goblin kicking shins, throwing tantrums, and generally carrying on cranky should "grow a thicker skin."

If you go half way and just do the "kick them out when they start being obnoxious" tactic which, in an ideal world, would indeed be the better option, every one of these types will make a scene, further disturbing your good customers, claiming discrimination, and all that garbage. By making it a (voluntary - that aspect is very important. It MUST be the business owners' decision) blanket ban, that's about as non-discriminatory as you can get.

The breeders brought this sort of thing onto themselves. WDGAF how inconvenient it is for you to have to hire a sitter to go out: you brought it on yourself when you decided to spawn (or made the poor decisions that lead to you spawning), and brought the blowback on yourself by being completely inconsiderate to other people when your kids acted up.



NB for the contextually-impaired: With the exception of the third word in the post, "you," "your," and similar pronouns are used generically. If you're taking something personally, rest assured, I'm sure that your child is an absolute angel.

 

[xmbts]

That sounds like an awful idea, if you can't put up with a kid then maybe you should be the one to leave.

Yeah I'm not going to walk out of a movie or restaurant I paid for because someone else's worm is making a little shit out of themselves, don't be absurd.

Responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. They should know the deal when they have a kid - that your life isn't yours anymore, that parenting is a full-time job and if you want a break, you pay for a sitter.

My sister is just now learning this with her first son, but she's adapting well.

A lot of parents say they can't afford a sitter. To this, I reply:

"If you can afford a $10-20 movie and/or $40 - $80 meal, you can sure as hell afford a sitter."

I do find it kind of funny that you imply selfishness on the part of the parents when you're perfectly willing to force them to pay for a sitter (Not cheap) just to make yourself more comfortable.

This whole thread reeks of hypocrisy.

If you can afford to eat out, you can afford a sitter. There's really no excuse for it.

You think I'm being selfish? You'd willingly take your squealing piggies out to an enclosed, public environment where people have paid to be and enjoy themselves, and force them to have their evening ruined by noise because you can't control your little mistakes?

On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?

Inconveniencing others for the benefit of yourself, yes that's what I'm saying. If you can afford to eat out and you don't have children I think you can afford to walk out.

Not a fan of that idea then why don't you tough it out and deal with it just like the parents have to every waking minute of their lives.

The quiet people who had the foresight to either wear a condom or leave their kids at home with a responsible baby sitter should not be punished for the actions of a few jerkish asshats. If someone talks on their phone in the middle of the movie theater the management can tell them to piss off and if a kid is screaming and making life uncomfortable for the fifty people in the restaurant trying to be respectful then the manager can tell the family of three to piss off for hurting his business. When the majority is being quiet and respecting the atmosphere then they should not be punished because a couple of idiots cant think ahead to control their kids. The needs of the many trump the wants of the few in this case.

News flash: Parenting is kind of difficult, before you go on complaining about how some noisy brat ruined your evening think about having to tend to that kid 24/7 and cut them some slack. You didn't choose to be a parent and that's your business but you can't just make people do something just because you don't feel comfortable with them.

Yes Parenting is difficult but that is not an excuse to abandon common courtesy. If they want to get away from their kids then they should be willing to hand over 20 bucks to their neighbors 16 year old daughter to watch the kids for two hours. They should not force something on the rest of us when there are viable options for them. They can take their five year olds to PG movies they can take their five year olds to Denny's and they can take their five year olds to places meant to serve families including small children. They should not take their five year olds to a high scale restaurant with a quiet atmosphere, they should not take their five year olds to Machete and they should not take their five year olds to place where a screaming child would ruin the experience for someone else. Everyone is paying to be there. You are ruining it. Yes you paid fifty buck for your food but the rest of us paid a few thousand when added together. So you can be the one to leave. Not us.

Or how about people quit whining and just enjoy their damn meal?

You say you don't blame the kids so why ban them, they're the ones who are most effected by this.

No they're not. How is a child that isn't literate yet and knows nothing of the world *affected by not being at a fancy restaurant, or its parents taking the family car instead of a plane on a trip? Is it going to be traumatised because mum and dad went to the new French restaurant uptown by themselves? The child won't even bloody remember, for crying out loud.

Blame parents all you want it won't change a damn thing, it's just more intolerance.

No.

Banning people from doing or having certain things for reasons that are out of their control is intolerance, like banning people from getting on a plane because of their place of birth, or banning them from using a water fountain because of their skin colour, or banning them from driving cars because of their gender.

Banning people from playing their music loudly at 3am isn't intolerance. Neither is banning people from singing football anthems during a stage performance. And guess what, people bringing screaming children into a dining establishment fall into the LATTER category. It is an action, not a state. And actions can be prevented. You cannot stop (well, usually) being a woman, or being black, but you CAN refrain from bringing a three year old into a restaurant.

A ban is a sweeping generalization, so in supporting it you are promoting the misconception that all kids are like this.

And not everybody who has driven a car while intoxicated has killed or injured a pedestrian. Not everybody who was subjected to passive smoke has developed cancer. Very few children who watched R-rated slasher flicks grew up to be murderers.

And yet, people are banned from driving while drunk, people are banned from smoking in any closed room, and children are banned from watching adult-rated movies. So, according to your logic, that means that those people who made those laws promote the idea that everybody who drove a car after a drink too many is like the guy who plowed into a pregnant woman with his truck, or that people keel over dead in the wake of everybody who faintly smells of nicotine, or that every child who sees porn or violence in the media is a future rapist and murderer.

Tell me how that makes sense.

I'm kind of surprised that you're unaware that people have differing opinions then you. You aren't right, I'm not right either. Nor are either of us wrong, you keep quoting me and trying to pick apart my responses as if you're the voice of reason and I'm some kind of moron.

Well, stop repeating that five year olds have the same rights as I do when I have given you a dozen examples on why that isn't so, and I might talk to you like I talk to adults.

Being a child really doesn't have much to do with age young man.

Yeah, and toddlers can run for president. I get it.

You're missing a step here, most of those other things you listed as banned are harmful, what we're talking about is people being too short tempered and socially inept to just be able to put up with an obnoxious child.

 

[Jonluw]

However, I thought not taking your kids to places like this was sort of considered common decency already.

Common decency? Like most people today even know what that is. Civility in Western countries is so dead, it makes the Triceratops look like... well, something very much alive.

People listening to shit music on the tube, not with earphones, but with their cell phone speakers set to LOUD. People yelling into their phones at restaurants. People blocking the stairs to a train that's about to leave that they just got out of. People cutting you off in traffic. And yes, people letting their kids run wild at restaurants with tablecloths.

It's bad here, it's unbloodybelievably bad in the States, and all things being equal, it makes me want to move to Korea or Japan.

Well, I don't know about you; but I've never experienced being disturbed by a wailing infant someone brought to the cinema.

Spoiler: And I know practically noone speaks Norwegian here, but anyways:

 

[LandoCristo]

Hulk SHRUG! Yes, children on airplanes are annoying, and it would suck paying for a nice night at a fancy restraunt for it to get ruined by small children. But it's not YOUR right to say if a child can go into a restaurant or not; it's the parent's right to take their child with them, or it's the restaurant's right to turn them away if they become disruptive.